• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Continuation Part Six: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

Status
Not open for further replies.
It was six years ago tonight that Amanda Knox was working as a waitress at a pub in Perugia. In Seattle she saved money from 3 part-time jobs to save up to study abroad. I wonder what Rudy Guede was doing six years ago tonight. He was at a disco wasn't he? With the Spanish girls, right? Amanda found a part-time job after being in Perugia just a few weeks. And Rudy - well, he couldn't keep a job! Labor wasn't his thing. For Rudy, "poor Rudy" (quoting Magini), it was easier to break into homes and steal property. A gold ladies watch, a lawyer's laptop and cell phone, food, a butcher knife from a nursery school, probably more. Oh, don't let me forget, he stole Meredith's rent money, cell phones, 2 sets of keys, and of course her life.

Man, was he lucky. While on the run in Germany, various prescient senior police officers deduced without physical evidence that a housemate and her boyfriend must have been involved. So when Rudy was eventually caught he could claim that "the other guy did it".
 
Strozzi said:
It was six years ago tonight that Amanda Knox was working as a waitress at a pub in Perugia. In Seattle she saved money from 3 part-time jobs to save up to study abroad. I wonder what Rudy Guede was doing six years ago tonight. He was at a disco wasn't he? With the Spanish girls, right? Amanda found a part-time job after being in Perugia just a few weeks. And Rudy - well, he couldn't keep a job! Labor wasn't his thing. For Rudy, "poor Rudy" (quoting Magini), it was easier to break into homes and steal property. A gold ladies watch, a lawyer's laptop and cell phone, food, a butcher knife from a nursery school, probably more. Oh, don't let me forget, he stole Meredith's rent money, cell phones, 2 sets of keys, and of course her life.

Man, was he lucky. While on the run in Germany, various prescient senior police officers deduced without physical evidence that a housemate and her boyfriend must have been involved. So when Rudy was eventually caught he could claim that "the other guy did it".
Click to expand...

Watch him on his TV interview in a couple of days, claiming exactly that.
 
Machiavelli said:
Yes but in Italy, PhD is not used as a title. You may see it only on someone's curriculum. But it's not used, not even on buisness cards.
It is normally just not considered.
However, a person who works as a 'researcher' in a university in fact has a PhD.
Click to expand...

This is not true. You have doctorate degrees in italy, equivalent to a phd. You don't become a phd just from working 8 years as a researcher. You must get the title like everywhere else.
 
Diocletus said:
(...)
But let's clear this up. Does stefanoni have a PhD? If not, I propose that we call her an Italo-Doctor, or a Doctor*, or maybe a Researcher. Perhaps we can call her a Bologna-Doctor. Or, maybe just a phony-bologna.
Click to expand...

Stefanoni is Dr. Stefanoni. This is her title. You don't need to put questions about how she got her title: however she got it's her title, that's what she is for the public.

You want her curriculum instead? Ask her. Write an e-mail.
 
Machiavelli said:
Stefanoni is Dr. Stefanoni. This is her title. You don't need to put questions about how she got her title: however she got it's her title, that's what she is for the public.

You want her curriculum instead? Ask her. Write an e-mail.
Click to expand...

She's an italian "Dr" not a phd Dr.
 
MDDVS said:
This is not true. You have doctorate degrees in italy, equivalent to a phd. You don't become a phd just from working 8 years as a researcher. You must get the title like everywhere else.
Click to expand...

Of course, but they are not considered in normal speaking. They are not part of the titles normally expressed. There is no "Dr" for PhD laureates. They are in the curriculum, they are useful for academic career but are not used for nothing else. They don't have a common name neither.
Public Universities in Italy don't have paid researchers who work outside PhD programs or, in alternative, who have not already a PhD. It is not possible in terms of contracts. To have a one year research contract, you must have a PhD.
Now, after the Gelmini reform, actually, it is unfortunately just no longer possible to work in a univestity for 8 years as a researcher, no matter the titles you have.
 
Machiavelli said:
Of course, but they are not considered in normal speaking. They are not part of the titles normally expressed. There is no "Dr" for PhD laureates. They are in the curriculum, they are useful for academic career but are not used for nothing else. They don't have a common name neither.
Public Universities in Italy don't have paid researchers who work outside PhD programs or, in alternative, who have not already a PhD. It is not possible in terms of contracts. To have a one year research contract, you must have a PhD.
Now, after the Gelmini reform, actually, it is unfortunately just no longer possible to work in a univestity for 8 years as a researcher, no matter the titles you have.
Click to expand...

So you're saying she's a phd after all. Do you know which university awarded the title? Is it possible to find her dissertation online?
 
MDDVS said:
She's an italian "Dr" not a phd Dr.
Click to expand...

You actually don't know. Because even if she is a PhD, she will never put that into her title.

There are other traditional uses. For example, judges: all judges in Italy are called "Dr". This is the traditional title for a judge, but their actual academic or professional title can be much higher than a PhD, in fact it usually is.
The majority of judges are lawyers, which in Italy is Avvocato, something that requires a post degree training of three years and a state exam. Then, they became magistrates, which requires a further five years study (which you need to enter, and it's extremely difficult) and another exam to conclude the specialization school for legal professions. After that, you need to pass a further very hard exam, we say "win a competition", after which you become a magistrate (less than 200-300 every year make it).
However a magistrate will always use his lowest title, "Dr", no matter if meanwhile he becomes a law professor, if he had worked as a lawyer or had other degrees in the past or if becomes the president of the Constitutional court.
 
Machiavelli, thank you for clarifying various titles and degrees. I understand that Dr. Stefanoni has earned the title in her country. I, myself, do not want to disparage her title or professional position.

Based on many comments and reviews of publicly-available lab data, I do believe that she mishandled important evidence analysis and skewed the results to support a position. I also believe that she is concealing what she really did in her lab.
 
Strozzi said:
It was six years ago tonight that Amanda Knox was working as a waitress at a pub in Perugia. In Seattle she saved money from 3 part-time jobs to save up to study abroad. I wonder what Rudy Guede was doing six years ago tonight. He was at a disco wasn't he? With the Spanish girls, right? Amanda found a part-time job after being in Perugia just a few weeks. And Rudy - well, he couldn't keep a job! Labor wasn't his thing. For Rudy, "poor Rudy" (quoting Magini), it was easier to break into homes and steal property. A gold ladies watch, a lawyer's laptop and cell phone, food, a butcher knife from a nursery school, probably more. Oh, don't let me forget, he stole Meredith's rent money, cell phones, 2 sets of keys, and of course her life.

Man, was he lucky. While on the run in Germany, various prescient senior police officers deduced without physical evidence that a housemate and her boyfriend must have been involved. So when Rudy was eventually caught he could claim that "the other guy did it".
Click to expand...
.
The best thing that ever happened to Rudy, was Mignini. I bet Rudy had to pinch himself every hour just to make sure he was not dreaming.
.
 
Machiavelli said:
Bs. Mignini admitted ... ? Total crap.
The truth:
1) Amanda Knox's interrogation lasted less than three hours (Saul Kassin thinks she was questioned for 14 hours).
2) she delivered her spontaneous statement without any interrogation, without any questioning.3) Anna Donnino witnessed to both the interrogation and the statement.
4) Knox wrote her hand written memoirs without any questioning, voluntarily, and on her own initiative.5) She never claimed a coerced confession, always a false memory syndrome.
6) She told a load of crap of different kinds outside any interrogation, before her interrogation and after, unrelated to any question and unrelated to any pressure, just purely manipulative and deceptive, as I mentioned.
Click to expand...

#4 must be the later morning Nov 6 and the Nov 7 memorandums. Because the ones that got thrown out as having no evidentiary value were, in Mignini's own words, written down by him when he was acting (his words) "as if only a notary".

Machiavelli - will you please read Mignini's interview with Drew Griffin.
 
moodstream said:
I am afraid I can see where this is all headed:

According to Gazzetta del Sud english , the methodology used by the experts nominated by the Florence judge as those applied to a "low copy number" and are the same as the ones used by the Perugia experts which led to criticism of the initial findings of the forensic police.

Hence, since the defense does not object to the finding of Knox's DNA, how can they call foul when it comes to Ms Kercher's?
Click to expand...

The HUGE - the definitive - difference is that the defense is not claiming this result proves any particular hypothesis. Maybe Amanda left her DNA there when she used the knife to prepare a meal, but hey, it also might have been transferred onto the blade by police who also handled items belonging to her. Who knows, and who cares? Given the chain of custody issues and the marginal quantity of the sample, this finding is not reliable evidence to support any specific claim.

It is simply a negative result for the presence of Meredith Kercher's DNA.
 
Machiavelli said:
As much as by presenting it in words.
Click to expand...

When lawyers present verbal arguments in court, the arguments are required to be based on facts and evidence. During verbal arguments, the opposing attorneys usually have the right to object to descriptions of the crime that rely on speculation, contain false claims or claims of evidence that doesn't exist, or consist of invalid arguments, such as appeals to emotion.

If one side presents an animated video cartoon as an argument, the first legitimate objection would be that it is based on speculation, because it presents an account of a scene that was not actually videotaped. It should be disqualified on the spot for reason of speculation alone, and particularly in this case, because of all the false evidence, assumptions, and claims on which the speculation was based.

MDDVS said:
Why spend the money doing it then? Why not just present it in words? If it is just the same.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Just as we ask why leaks to the press are routine in Italy if they don't benefit the leakers.
 
Machiavelli said:
Yes but in Italy, PhD is not used as a title. You may see it only on someone's curriculum. But it's not used, not even on buisness cards.
It is normally just not considered.
However, a person who works as a 'researcher' in a university in fact has a PhD.
Click to expand...

This is a joke. In Italy everybody lies and calls themselves doctor. Every member of the Italian SC who reviewed this case call themselves doctor. Mignini calls himself doctor. Stefanoni calls herself doctor.

What they all have in common is not an education entitling them to be called doctor, rather they are all liars overstating their qualifications. So they all have lying in common...you should be proud.
 
Machiavelli said:
Of course, but they are not considered in normal speaking. They are not part of the titles normally expressed. There is no "Dr" for PhD laureates. They are in the curriculum, they are useful for academic career but are not used for nothing else. They don't have a common name neither.
Public Universities in Italy don't have paid researchers who work outside PhD programs or, in alternative, who have not already a PhD. It is not possible in terms of contracts. To have a one year research contract, you must have a PhD.
Now, after the Gelmini reform, actually, it is unfortunately just no longer possible to work in a univestity for 8 years as a researcher, no matter the titles you have.
Click to expand...


Lets cut thru the BS. Say someone is in Italy and they feel sick. They pull out the phone book and look up what or who in the information pages? Certainly not doctor or the Italian word for doctor....if they did that then they would have to scan thru every lying Italian who overstates their qualifications...including Mignini. or Galacti or Giobbi...

I understand that I am speaking about medical doctor but is there some way to differentiate this in your language? I don't really need Mignini to treat my illness...so what section of the yellow pages do I start at?
 
Machiavelli said:
<snip>The point is: it is absolutely not true that the only thing the prosecution has, about Knox's lies, is the false report she gave during a questioning.

Unfortunately this is a key logical mistake, and if you make this wrong assumption from the beginning you deny facts, you make a basically false assumption so it becomes impossible to go forward in a reasoning.<snip>
Click to expand...

The key logical mistake and the basically false assumption that you and Mignini have made is that you believe you can understand the intent and the meaning of Amanda Knox's words, when she is from a culture utterly different from yours, one that you are not familiar with, and one against which you have strong prejudices and objections. The same goes for Amanda's gender.

Your mistakes and assumptions are based on conceit born of ignorance. The real crime, though, is that when Amanda's fellow American citizens explain the meaning of her actions to you, you refuse to believe them.

You know how it feels when you try to explain to us the precise meanings of words we have drawn mistaken conclusions about. Can you recognize we have the same problem? We don't have the authority to tell you what riti means, and you don't have the authority to tell us what Amanda meant.

<snip>at the question "why did you accuse Lumumba?", she answered "Because it could be true".

Words are important. She could have said "because I was scared of the police", or "because I only wanted to end the interrogation" (but there was none, recall, at 05.45), or "because I really had this memory (and still have?) and I really believed that my memory was the truth"; or "because I thought (I believed) it was true". Or "because I remembered it".
Instead she said "because it could be true".
What does the verb "could" mean?
If you say "I told you this because I thought this could be true", this is logically equivalent of saying "I told you this because I thought you whould believe it".
"It could be true" is a logical equivalent of "it's believable"; "they would believe it".
Amanda Knox said "I accused Patrick Lumumba because I thought they would belive it".
I picked her last statement, just as an example to show how I deal logically with things. These are the things Knox's statements actually say.<snip>
Click to expand...

I can see why you feel this way. Massei, for example, is full of occurrences of "this could be true." By your logic, then, whenever Massei wrote, "This could be true," essentially he was saying, "I told you this because I thought you would believe it -- suckahs!"

However, Amanda was not thinking like that. She was not trying to get away with anything or mislead anyone, because she had no idea she was going to be held as a suspect or a convict for the next four years. She thought everything was going to turn out all right. The reason she thought it could be true was that the police had persuaded her it could be true, and she believed them.

You forget that Amanda spent the first half of the interrogation not knowing what the police were talking about in terms of Patrick. If she thought she could get the police to believe Patrick was guilty, why wouldn't she just say that right off the bat, and save herself some time and some whacks to the head?

And all this, is something of what Knox has aganst her, still just about the false accusation, which is only one element in the evidence set.
Click to expand...

What are the others?
 
Last edited:
Mary_H said:
When lawyers present verbal arguments in court, the arguments are required to be based on facts and evidence. During verbal arguments, the opposing attorneys usually have the right to object to descriptions of the crime that rely on speculation, contain false claims or claims of evidence that doesn't exist, or consist of invalid arguments, such as appeals to emotion.

If one side presents an animated video cartoon as an argument, the first legitimate objection would be that it is based on speculation, because it presents an account of a scene that was not actually videotaped. It should be disqualified on the spot for reason of speculation alone, and particularly in this case, because of all the false evidence, assumptions, and claims on which the speculation was based.
Click to expand...
.
Well thought, and well said Mary!
.
 
Over at PMF.net:

Nell:

From what I understand, the report says the sample "I" has Knox's DNA and Guede, Sollecito and the victim can be excluded as contributers of the sample.

Michael:

As a final note, if Nell's reading of the report is correct and Guede's profile, even if only partial, has been found in a sample from that knife...that's Knox and Sollecito's coffins nailed shut!!!​

Michael needs to read more carefully!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom